Revell Constitution Conversion

Well, here goes. There's a set of plans for the Philadelphia in Chapelle's History of the American Sailing Navy. She was a handsome ship, she has some historical importance (albeit briefly), and I've never seen a model of her.

Unfortunately there were some pretty big differences between her and the Constitution. The Constitution is considerably bigger, and the hull lines are quite a bit different. In addition to the differences in the transom, the Philadelphia had a different figurehead; that in itself would be quite a project. I think the Philadelphia would be a great model subject, but an accurate model of her would really have to be scratchbuilt.

In the past few years quite a few people have dug into the history of the Constitution's appearance. It has indeed changed a great deal. I have more respect for the big Revell kit than some people do. Some details of it have been shown to be a little questionable on the basis of recent research, but it's based on the plans George Campbell did for the Smithsonian and in my opinion he did a good job. (This subject has been taken up in some detail elsewhere in this forum.)

I recommend two fairly recent books: A Most Fortunate Ship, by Tyron G. Martin, and Old Ironsides, by Thomas Gilmer, with watercolors by William Gilkerson. Martin was the Constitution's commanding officer at the time of the Bicentennial, when the Navy poured some money into restoring her. Gilmer is an instructor of naval architecture at the Naval Academy, and was involved in her most recent restoration, just a few years ago - the project that led to her sailing under her own power again. Gilkerson is a superb marine artist who takes great pains with his research. Both books contain reproductions of old paintings and of newly-commissioned ones, in an effort to establish her appearance at various crucial moments. I don't have either in front of me at the moment, but as I recall there's a painting in one of them by Tom Freeman depicting the assault on Tripoli. That would be a good start.

To modify the Revell kit into "Barbary Wars configuration" would be a major project, but do-able. The bulwarks would have to be changed, several major details of the rig would need revision - and she'd need a new figurehead (Hercules carrying a club in one hand and the Constitution in the other). If I remember correctly, she didn't have a stripe through her gunports at that time; the sides of the hull were natural, oiled oak, and the wales and rails were "blackened."

Two recent wood Constitution kits, by Bluejacket and Model Shipways, make great claims to historical accuracy. I haven't examined either of them, but I believe the instruction manuals (which, I think, are sold separately) contain quite a bit of information about her changing configurations. Both were developed with the help of the U.S.S. Constitution Museum - which, by the way, probably would be a good source as well. I suspect the folks there have lots of documents at their disposal and can answer questions with about as much authority as anybody.

To get an idea of what you're up against, take a look at Donald McNarry's Ship Models in Miniature. McNarry gets my vote for the title Best Ship Modeler in the World. Among his hundreds of small-scale models he's done several Constitutions on the scale of 1/16"=1', and they're incredible. One is in the Naval Academy Museum; another was on loan from the Smithsonian to the Mariners' Museum at Newport News the last time I heard. I arranged the loan when I worked at the Mariners' Museum, because I'd admired the model so much when I'd visited the Smithsonian. It represents the ship as built (much as she looked during the Barbary Wars). When the model arrived at the museum I sent some photographs of it to Captain Martin and asked for his comments on it. He agreed that it was an outstanding example of model building, but found about a dozen mistakes in terms of accuracy.

That's the best I can do off the top of my head. My advice is to start with the Martin and Gilmer books, and, if possible, make a trip to Boston. While you're in that neighborhood, you'll want to swing by the Peabody-Essex Museum in Salem and take a look at the "Isaac Hull model." If you get a look at either of the McNarry models in the flesh, be warned: they may make you give up on model building altogether.

Thanks for the ideas on where to look. I have been to both the real ship, and the Peabody museum and have lots of pictures. I also have Gilkerson's book and will get Martin's. I will also contact BlueJacket about the plans for their kit. I have line drawings of the 1798 transome and stern configurations. These would need to be scratchbuilt since they are nothing like the present ships configuration that the Revell kit represents. Scratchbuilding a figure head wouldn't be a problem since I know a gentleman that loves to carve sub-minitures for me.

What intrigues me the most for this project would be the colors. Getting the gunline and sidwalls to that oiled oak look would be challenging, yet fun. Again. this challange seems to be rewarding for both artistic and historical signifigance. And to do it in plastic adds to that.

Thanks for your memory,
Scott

Scott-

I have the Chappelle book mentioned above if you need anything copied out of it I'd be happy to make copies for you.

Good luck- sounds like a great project...

Len

A little while ago I checked the websites of the Constitution and the Constitution Museum. The former was down for some reason, but the museum site has a link to the museum store and the museum store sells prints of the Tom Freeman paintings. There are several of them, including (my memory was right for once) one showing the Constitution and her consorts sailing into the harbor of Tripoli. There's an image of the print on the website; if you click on it you can enlarge it to a pretty decent size and make a printout of it.

The museum store also sells the Bluejacket instruction manual - though it's pretty expensive. ($60.00, if I remember right.) The "Models" section of that site impresses me; the people responsible for it, unlike the typical museum gift shop staff, actually seem to know a good deal about ship models.

Good luck.

The painting you mentioned is what inspried me. That oil oak finish on the sides would go really well with the oak mantel and trim in the Mother-in-Laws new house. In fact, the print may make a good backdrop on the wall.

So far, what I have read on the net about Freeman's accuracy has been pretty positive. I have called the Consititution museum and they are having a librarian call me back to disscuss in detail what I am looking for.

Again, thanks for the leads.

BTW, I first went to the Peabody Museum as a 11 yr old kid from Montana. The models there, and at the Mariners museum are what made want to build tall ships. I also vistied the Constellation and Constitution, Mayflower, and Bounty. I've been to the Constitution several times since.

I have a Macnarry book, and by far, another insperation.

Len, I may take you up on your offer. Thanks!

Scott

In reviewing this thread I see my Halfzeimer's-afflicted brain screwed up a citation (again). The book Old Ironsides, which I attributed to William Gilkerson, in fact was written by the fine naval architect Thomas Gilmer. Gilkerson did some of the illustrations, but Gilmer wrote the text. Mea culpa; sorry.

I'm inclined to agree regarding the Tom Freeman paintings. I imagine the time will come some years hence when somebody will find something wrong with them in terms of accuracy, but to my eye they look remarkably good. The same goes for Wilkerson's. These guys put every bit as much effort into research as any ship modeler does.

Hello all!

I popped into my local library a few days ago and came upon an older printin of Martin's "A Most Fortunate Ship" - the book has been recently (1997) re-released with updated information about the current restoration and the diagonal riders installed in the hull.

I own the more recent printing, but the library's older printing, released in the 1980's, has a very interesting series of color plates. One of them is a large painting of the Constitution - I believe it is sailing into Tripoly Harbor, but it is not the famous painting that everyone knows about, it is another one, commissioned by the Navy Federal Credit Union, but the name of the artist escapes me.

In the painting, you can see the transom of the ship clearly mirrors that of the Revell/Smithsonian Constitution, with its barbershop pole pilasters flanking the stern windows and the 4 maidens running along the rope trim. All the striping is painted in buff color as is the trim on the stern, and bulwarks are raised between the fore and mainmast with long guns protruding from ports along the way. The angle of the ship precludes a clear view of what likely would have been the Hercules figurehead. A single martingale rather than the dual dolphinback striker adorns the bowsprit. The ship is the centerpiece of the painting and it fills most of the space, though the trailing smaller ships and boats are also visible.

Has anyone else seen this painting, and can anyone vouch for its authenticity?

Jose

Another thing to remember that the ship of the classes were built by different ship yards by different draftsmen/designers. Also after a battle sometimes the ship would get changes made to her "out of practically" as much as anything else. I wish someone would have thought to write up a detailed description or sketch a ver drawings.

Jake

When analyzing such things as color schemes and rigging details in illustrations it's vital to check their credentials. I haven't seen the one referred to in Mr. Gonzales's post, but the fact that it was commissioned by the Navy Federal Credit Union obviously establishes that it's of quite recent origin. That means, in turn, that the artist was doing a great deal of reconstruction and a certain amount of guesswork, either on his own or in consultation with somebody else. As Mr. Gonzales implies, it's always best to take such pictures with a large grain of salt. Regardless of how much effort the artists put into them, they're subject to revision based on later research.

I fell into this trap with a loud thud myself once. The Coast Guard Historian's Office commissioned me to do a line drawing of the first revenue cutter Eagle, which took part in the Quasi-War with France. The best source I could find (there are remarkably few sources on early American revenue cutters) was a set of hull lines that Howard I. Chapelle had found in the archives of Coast Guard headquarters many years ago, and which have since disappeared. I figured they were likely to be reasonably close, and that nobody would be able to prove that the Eagle didn't look like that. After my drawing got printed, Don Canney found a contemporary "enrollment document" that gave the Eagle's dimensions - and established that she was considerably bigger than the ship in the Chapelle tracing. Thud. Since then, every time I've done a drawing on the basis of scanty information I've put the words "A Reconstruction" on the label.

When one starts systematically eliminating the "modern" pictures and gets down to the contemporary ones, the actual primary source material often turns out to be surprisingly slim. For instance, the contemporary illustrative material about H.M.S. Bounty amounts to two pieces of drafting cloth: the "Admiralty draughts" made before and after her conversion to an armed merchantman. Every other drawing, painting, model, and full-size replica of the Bounty is based either on those drawings or on somebody's inference - reasonable or otherwise. (There are also some written primary sources about her - the spar dimensions, for instance - but not much. Where the makers of the 1959 movie got the notion that she was painted blue I can't imagine.)

The best marine painters operate like the best modelers: they examine the available sources critically, and acknowledge that, inevitably, their finished products are based on a certain amount of personal interpretation. I happen to think that's what makes both fields so fascinating: we can never be sure what's really accurate, but we can hope to get closer all the time and getting there is half the fun. I suspect, for instance, that a discussion like the one we're having about the appearance of the Constitution wouldn't have taken place fifty years ago. Modelers and painters would have taken a look at the real ship and assumed she had always look like that.

End of sermon. Fascinating topic.

I for one agree that to try to look for references to the exact ship could lead to frustration. However, there may be other clues that might tell me what the Constitution was like in 1804.
Her captain? What was he like, his fondesses, his dislikes, his family, temperament, sailing qualities? A lot about a ship is told through the behaviors of the captian.
The crew? Any documentation that may tell who the other officers were and what they were like? Correspondance to families? References to crew behaviors?
The Navy in general? What sources tell me what policies, orders, inventories, offices, codes, personell could give clues to what could lead to a hypothesis?
Current events in the year 1804? Trends, fashions, what was popular? Technology? How did they dress? How were the houses decorated? What cultures where dominate in design and decor? This will lead to general ship designs and decor of that period.
All this may need to be research since, as was noted, a ship changes a lot fron drawing board to launching, and then changes rapidly through its commission.

Look how much the Enterprise looks now compared to how it looked in 1961.

Well, off to to some more looking.

Thanks guys,
Scott